Titans, Chasms and AI's Continental Drift

Its introduction and adoption, along with its advanced capability DeepThink, marks a significant moment in the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). Set against the acknowledged Titans of Tech - OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Meta and Amazon - DeepSeek’s arrival highlights not only innovation but also the emergence of geopolitical and socio-technical divides. It is a moment that requires us to think carefully about where we are heading as AI platforms undergo a kind of "continental drift," reshaping global access, norms and influence.

Currently, most widely available AI platforms are controlled by private or quasi-private entities. Titans like OpenAI, Google and Meta dominate the landscape in the United States, while China's AI development is driven by other giants such as SenseTime, iFlyTek, Tencent and Huawei, each excelling in areas like natural language processing, computer vision and advanced machine learning applications. DeepSeek sets cracks running through this ecosystem. Its approach and strategic detachment from the rapidly established 'norms' in recent years have set it apart, sparking excitement, concern and disrupting the country’s AI landscape. But with such innovation comes the risk of division - a global divide in AI access, culture and utility.

What’s becoming increasingly evident is the potential for these platforms to align with broader political and economic blocs. The R1 model release poses a critical question - are we moving towards a world where AI platforms reinforce geopolitical separations? Will one half of the world adopt AI that uses Chinese models while the other clings to US frameworks? Our metaphorical tectonic plates of AI are shifting and it is a shift reinforced by political events, corporate policies and cultural tensions.

We cannot overlook the impact of private ownership on this growing divide. The recent presidential inauguration in the United States, with its parade of billionaire contributors, underscored the consolidation of influence among a narrow elite. The Billionaire Boys' Club now holds a disproportionate share of control over the technologies that shape public discourse, decision-making and even reality itself. AI, once heralded as a democratising force, is at risk of becoming a tool for oligarchic or autocratic agendas, descending into the same chaos as currently besets social media.

The implications of this shift extend far beyond technology. Consider the National Football League (NFL) in the United States, today instructing the New England Patriots to shut down their Blue Sky account as it is not an approved social media platform for the NFL. Apparently, the NFL has deals with X and Meta, reinforcing dependence on these centralised, corporate-controlled technologies. It is a stark example of how platform choices are increasingly constrained by powerful entities, enforcing dependence on centralised, corporate-controlled technologies. This restriction stifles freedom of speech, limits freedom of choice and access to alternative platforms. What tech gives, tech also takes away - a reality made evident by Meta’s recent decision to abandon fact-checking in the US. If platforms abandon even the veneer of accountability what - or who - is left to safeguard the truth?

DeepSeek enters this fraught environment with a promise of differentiation. Its focus on separating itself from established norms offers potential advantages. For one, its development appears to prioritise ethical considerations and accessibility - a refreshing divergence from the profit-driven motives of many contemporaries. That said, DeepSeek’s rise also highlights the growing digital chasm in culture, development and training.

We are witnessing the emergence of digital inequality on multiple fronts. The divide is no longer limited to the global north versus south or rich versus poor. It now encompasses philosophical, technical and cultural approaches to AI development and implementation. If AI companies lean towards either US or Chinese paradigms, the result could be an entrenched separation in the ways that societies can benefit from AI.

This growing digital chasm raises profound questions about the future. Will access to AI become another fault line of inequality? As platforms are shaped by the cultural and political contexts of their creators, we risk embedding systemic discrimination, bias and exclusion into the very fabric of AI systems. The norms established over the past few years may have been short-lived but they have already set expectations for transparency, safety and accessibility. DeepSeek’s divergence, while promising in some respects, also challenges these expectations.

What happens when geopolitical tensions sink ever deeper into technological ecosystems? Will certain regions or countries be locked out of innovative AI developments based on political alliances or trade restrictions? As the US shifts further from its democratic roots towards oligarchy or even aristocracy, will access to AI tools be weaponised as a tool of control rather than empowerment?

As I’ve mentioned - what tech gives, tech takes away. AI platforms hold immense potential for societal good but their consolidation under private control poses significant risks. The abandonment of fact-checking by Meta underlines a broader abdication of responsibility by tech giants. Who will safeguard truth? Or realities? And what are the implications for public trust, decision-making and governance?

To address these challenges, we need a renewed focus on preparedness and strategic response. The predictions market for AI, while fascinating, becomes futile if it devolves into speculative exercises. My hope would be that organisations and governments prioritise risk and issues analysis to inform future actions - but given the current geopolitical situation, that hope feels futile. Preparedness, not prophecy, is the key to navigating this uncertain landscape.

DeepSeek’s R1 debut offers an opportunity to stop, pause and rethink the norms of AI development and adoption but for this opportunity to translate into equitable outcomes, we have to address the broader systemic issues at play. Ensuring global access to AI, fostering cultural inclusivity and holding private entities accountable are critical steps in bridging the ever-widening digital chasm.

The future of AI is not set in stone but its ever-accelerating trajectory will be shaped by the decisions we make today. Whether we succumb to an entrenched and fractured digital world or regroup sufficiently to build bridges across the divides depends on our collective will to act - and the good nature of our human intent.